I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do this, but I just found this site and the 9/11 material is good.
I want to draw peoples' attention to a forum www.nukelies.com which was started to explore the idea that nuclear weapons were and are a fraud.

*We have sections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, showing these towns were not 'nuked', but just bombed like other Japanese towns.
* We have sections on what properties were ascribed to 'atom bombs' (and how some of them were dropped: the 'mushroom cloud', the glassified desert, the supposed shadows of a person (or two), the radiation
* Ditto for the H bomb, and why it was made up - essentially to make war 'unthinkable' when people suggested the A bomb should be used
* We're working on pieces exmaining the sites of supposed nuclear tests, for example Bikini
* Plus a lot of apparently off-topic material. In fact, much modern thought and propaganda is influenced by supposed nukes.
* There are considerable doubts - when you investigate - as to whether nuclear power ever worked. There is nowhere on earth powered by it; the Chinese are building many power stations - all coal fired; the 'dumpload' hypothesis appears to cover this

There are also videos on Youtube supporting these general theses.
NB the whole intention is to be accurate and scientific and evidence-based
Click here >> http://www.nukelies.com

Isn't Nico Haupt behind this theory?
Anyhow, it shouldn't be down to whoever creates these theories but the question should be are there grounds upon which any theory can be launched.

To some extent the nuclear energy industry competes with the oil industry and so why wouldn't there be created a nuclear weapon that is feared by the world and a few melt downs to deter governments from taking the nuclear industry forward. Melt downs of nuclear plants is just an unknown invisable fear whereas the after effects of nuclear weapons are a known and visable fear.

Electric cars are slowly emerging and what if they pass the stage of having to be recharged [using the means of nuclear energy] and become nuclear energy cars. Who knows how nano sciences will progress in years to come.

Nico has been accused of being Cointelpro and probably all sorts of other characters but I thought his first opinion on 9/11 was rather interesting.

Not only that airbases had been closed down but that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition to protect lives. How simple was it to fly something into the towers [with one missing and landing in WTC7] with the threat being there were nuclear devices on board. There didn't have to be. One can appreciate what the only course would have been. Bring them down and bury any threat under the rubble. Hot spots and all.
Don't deny it or that one may have missed and shot into WTC7 because we all saw it.

Aside from the interesting history catch what Edwin says about the electric car. The first electric cars were covered up and went the way of the Dodo but are slowly coming back. This shows that this technology [the hybrid car] is not so new.

Ask why the hybrid has suddenly appeared in our streets. Its not the fact they were too dangerous because they ran silent and pedestrians can't hear them coming.

*The point about permission is that the original post was an external link with a bit of info, which may be discouraged.

*Most physicists have little to do with nuclear matters, or with the more or less fantasy worlds of relativity etc. And there is strict security - there is no independent auditing. At least, this is true in the 'west' - it's possible the 3rd world and Japan are discovering anomalies.
I'd be pleased if people look at www.nukelies.com and maybe comment (we discourage trivial timewasting comments, though). There's a newbies section on the sort of thing we're looking for. It needs some knowledge of modern history & science & technology, but it's not as complicated as is often made out to be. We also have an off-topic section looking at various other revisionist ideas.

Were the US to launch a nuclear strike, for any reason, the weapon of choice would most likely be Trident missiles launched from one or more Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. The US Navy has 14 Ohio class submarines in service, 8 assigned to the Pacific Fleet and based in Bangor, Washington and 6 assigned to the Atlantic Fleet, based in Kings Bay, Ga. The Ohio class submarines are each armed with 24 Trident missiles, each carrying 6 to 8 100 kt W76 nuclear warheads. The four Royal Navy Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines, home-based in Scotland, are also armed with Trident missiles though they carry British warheads, rather than US-supplied warheads. It has been reported that the US Navy maintains 4 ballistic missile submarines on patrol at all times, 2 in the Atlantic and 2 in the Pacific.

The remainder of the US Navy's submarine fleet consists of 54 attack submarines and 4 converted Ohio class guided missile submarines (their mission includes special forces and intelligence gathering operations), divided roughly evenly between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. These boats can carry varying numbers of Tomahawk cruise missiles, but the Navy's stockpile of nuclear-tipped Tomahawks has been in storage since President George H.W. Bush ordered them removed from the Navy's ships in 1991. The date for their decommissioning has been set for 2013.

www.nukelies.com has quite a lot of consideration about so-called nuclear submarines, including, as with supposed nuclear battleships and aircraft carriers, whether they are in fact nuclear-powered.

It's also interesting to consider whether it's actually possible for a missile with enough fuel to travel thousands of miles to in fact be launched from underwater. This is quite apart from the issue of nuclear bombs -- note for example there are reports that 'bunker busters' aren't enough for Iran, despite the suppose capabilities of H bombs.

How close is this to reality?
It is thought that bunker buster bombs would be used on an Iranian nuclear plant. As I understand it, one in particular which is close to another two or three.
Lets think for a moment bunker buster bombs are not compatable with the generation of nuclear energy. Isn't there something called fall out and I don't mean fall out from bombers the sky?
How deep do these bunkers have to be before radiation cannot leak out after the bunker buster and blown it up.

Whether you are talking about energy grade or weapons grade - will it not lead to contamination.

Of course, if it is singled out for making weapons grade then this question surely is more pertinent.

So, if you want reality then do research on how do you take out a nuclear plant which is alleged to be making a weapons grade?

The Chernoble plant was "taken out" and look what facilities were available [then] for effecting a remedy. Do you think in 2012 the contamination would be contained?

Is there any weapons that could take down a nuclear plant without blowback that would be morally committing suicide, even for Israel?

How much is the threat of taking out any Iranian capability of manufacturing weapons grade a reality and how much is it a reality of actually doing it?

I'd be pleased if people look at _ and maybe comment (we discourage trivial timewasting comments, though). There's a newbies section on the sort of thing we're looking for. It needs some knowledge of modern history & science & technology, but it's not as complicated as is often made out to be. We also have an off-topic section looking at various other revisionist ideas.

OK, I've looked at your site and videos. Would you please give us your best evidence to support your conjecture? I don't think that posting drivel about the "JEWS" makes for a good scientific argument and there are many other examples of this almost classic holocaust denier rhetoric throughout your site.

We don't need your link posted anymore, just some good evidence. And by the way, did you get here from Raphael's obsession with the Swastika research? Looks like you may have arrived at the wrong address ...

"I don't think that posting drivel about the "JEWS" makes for a good scientific argument and there are many other examples of this almost classic holocaust denier rhetoric throughout your site. "

I become curious. What is a "Jew" according to you and what is "holocaust denial rethoric" (scientifically)? John Irving cannot be procecuted for his writings, it is so silly. What his personal life tells us is there are some who don't tolerate scientific research, they are afraid of something?

Edit: Probably I meant David Irving, not John Irving

Last edited by Rom on Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:22 am; edited 1 time in total